The old adage "be careful what you wish for" is an apt reminder in light of this week's news that the U.S. birthrate has dropped to its lowest level on record. For years, population hysterics have tried to convince Americans to aim not just for zero population growth in the U.S. but its complete reversal.

Many of the groups pushing this view have also been in the forefront of the anti-immigration movement -- NumbersUSA, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Negative Population Growth (NPG). They don't like immigrants -- even legal ones -- because immigrants, especially Hispanic immigrants, traditionally have had higher birth rates than the native born. But the new report from the Pew Research Center suggests that even among Hispanic immigrants, birth rates are falling quickly. So why is this a problem?

Contrary to the agenda pushed by the aforementioned neo-Malthusian groups, a declining population can spell real economic trouble in the future. As populations in advanced countries age, more people become dependents rather than contributors to the economy. Especially in nations that provide a social safety net, such as Social Security and Medicare in the U.S., the ability to fund these programs depends on population growth among younger, working-age people.

Declining population means fewer tax dollars to pay for everything from Social Security to national defense. As the base of taxpayers shrinks, the government will either have to reduce benefits and spending on essential programs or take a larger share of workers' incomes to pay for them. But the latter approach -- raising taxes -- will only make the problem worse. If people get to keep less of the money they earn, productivity declines and revenues fall. It's human nature.

Other countries with declining birthrates, most notably Japan, are paying the price already. Economic growth in these countries has slowed -- Japan, once considered a threat to American economic dominance, has experienced two decades of slowed growth. It is no coincidence that Japan also has one of the world's strictest immigration policies. They allow temporary workers but neither their integration nor the granting of citizenship to their children born on Japanese soil.

The U.S., on the other hand, traditionally has been generous in terms of immigration. The inflow of newcomers, who are younger, entering the workforce, and more likely to give birth to children than native-born Americans, has made our economy more dynamic and ensured a future funding source for programs for our aging, dependent, native-born population.

But the dismal economy of the last four years has discouraged immigrants. Mexicans, who for years have been the largest group of immigrants to the U.S., are no longer coming in vast numbers. Last year, net immigration from Mexico fell to zero for the first time since the Great Depression. And those immigrants already here are choosing to have far fewer children. The overall American birthrate fell by 8 percent between 2007 and 2010, but the birthrate among Mexican immigrant women fell by 23 percent.

The decision by immigrant women to have fewer children is not only rational during an economic downturn, it is a sign of their assimilation to American norms. They are emulating the decisions of American women to have smaller families to invest more in raising each child. The solution to the problem of declining birthrates is not to encourage the women already living here to have more babies, but to boost our population size by admitting more working-age, productive immigrants.

Without a continued influx of such immigrants, America will become poorer, not richer. Not only will millions of hard-working people be denied the opportunity to make their lives better, but Americans will lose out on the benefits of a growing economy.

Guess the marriage/child bearing boycott is working in the young caucasian male community. They may be finally figuring out that they have zero rights once they say “I do” and decide to start a family due to a complicit “family” court which condones zapping and eliminating (mostly) white fathers from the family unit.

3
posted on 11/30/2012 12:36:08 PM PST
by AbolishCSEU
(Percentage of Income in CS is inversely proportionate to Mother's parenting of children)

Which means to us conservatives still of childrearing years...have more kids!

With a reduced population, even with limited infrastructural growth, opportunites will abound for the next generation, in not only jobs (particularly the technical ones), but in cheaper land and housing as well.

Who better to take advantage of this than the properly raised and educated offspring of conservatives?

.... because the responsible, hard-working people are taxed to death and have to work 2 jobs to be able to give the kids what they need. And they are paying the tab for the irresponsible slobs who don’t have to work and don’t pay taxes.

What male in their right mind wants to father children in today’s feminist-dominated legal system? A woman can divorce you without any reason, and as long as she isn’t a crack whore, she’s almost certainly going to get primary custody. She’ll be able to get your assets attached for child support and sometimes alimony, and if you contest a child support payment, you lose any professional license you have.

If she invents a BS domestic violence complaint, you lose your right to own guns and you’re looking at 10’s of thousands in legal fees to get your name cleared.

Men are only responding to what women have been telling them: It makes no sense to buy a cow when you can get all the free milk you want.

Linda Chavez is just upset that Mexicans are still pouring in — and those who are here are having far fewer babies. So, her dream of turning American into a Hispanic nation of peasants who can be easily manipulated by politicians has to be put on hold.

Linda Chavez is just upset that Mexicans are not still pouring in — and those who are here are having far fewer babies. So, her dream of turning American into a Hispanic nation of peasants who can be easily manipulated by politicians has to be put on hold.

Introduce "Western Family Court" rules/laws to the Muslims and see their population drop to nill. Right now, under Sharia law, the father has all the rights, the mother, none. Reverse that like it is in the Western hemisphere and problem solved--which would be more sooner done than revising Western Family Court and the cottage divorce industry which is a huge cash cow (especially for BLUE states; google: Title IV-D)

14
posted on 11/30/2012 1:00:34 PM PST
by AbolishCSEU
(Percentage of Income in CS is inversely proportionate to Mother's parenting of children)

People who have bought into the two child or less lifestyle are denying themselves a great deal of fun!

I agree. I was one of 6 and its wonderful to have all those siblings around to support you, along with all the great childhood memories. If the missus had not become a walking encyclopedia of female problems after #2 we might have had that many too.

I was raised in a family of only two sons and I was the oldest. I always felt deprived because there weren’t a lot of siblings to play with. It wasn’t until a lot of children moved into my neighborhood that I was really happy as a child — and that was a long time ago. Luckily I had relatives who had lots of children and I enjoyed visiting them the most.

I understand completely why working people aren’t having as many children. I am praying that many of them have many children anyway, as a gift to the world. We need good people to have children. If every working married couple had even one more child than they had planned to — have three children, instead of two, for example — this country may start to turn around.

Fewer babies is part of the same cultural shift that elected Barack Obama. Can't tell you the number of people who know who care more about their vacations, their cars and homes, and their figures than in having children. We all hear their excuses: "I don't want screw up any children like my parents screwed me up." B.S. These folks are just too self-centered to care about the USA after they kick the bucket.

"Mexican illegal immigrants are not productive. They are dependents."

I don't necessarily disagree with you but have heart, my friend. If we can shut down illegal immigration, send many of them home (with whatever deal we get from the Congress) and finally assimilate those that are already here, you will find that Hispanics make fine Americans. They start businesses, are socially conservative (meaning they will one day be Republicans), they are loyal to the country, and the men make d-mn tough Marines.

Why do you think Texas is so strongly GOP, when it's demographics are similar to California? Because the Hispanics that made it are voting Republican. The CULTURE of Texas makes them that way.

Intermarriage will also eliminate the predisposition of Hispanics to be takers. Example: my daughter is in college and in her freshman dorm there were a number of other kids with Hispanic names like Gonzalez, Rodriguez, Martinez, etc. In spite of their names, these kids were all Caucasian and 100% all-American, meaning a Hispanic father and a white mother, producing white offspring. I think the intermarriage rate of assimilated Hispanics is over 50%.

I for one am not worried about Hispanics , but we must stop the influx first. Also stop giving citizenship to the kids of illegals.

People do have babies under less-than-optimal circumstances. Often because they expect most of life's long-term satisfactions to come from family relationships, and not from the accumulation of property.

Even for the poor, children provide the incentive to make something of your life. Children, to a large extent, make life worth living.

The impact of extremely low birthrates is not only economic but cultural.

After two generations of close to 1.0 children per woman, here's the result:

* Every child has no first cousins.

* Every child has no aunts or uncles.

* Every grandparent has only one grandchild.

Think for a moment of the impact of this. Big family gatherings at Christmas would be a thing of the past. Elderly people would have virtually no grandchildren to spoil or purchase gifts for. It would be a lifeless culture, to say the least, without small children, tiny voices, and bustling schools.

Incidentally, this is close to happening in Italy, Portugal, and Greece. The birthrates are close to 1.2 after about forty years. And do you think citizens of these countries will be spawning babies after their governments finally collapse due to excessive social spending?

**Actually whites are the only ones in the USA who are not having babies at a replacement rate, all the others are spitting them out copiously.***

Several years ago my Sister-in-law, a sub teacher, walked past a group of Hispanic teachers talking at a Texas school. One of the teachers said in a very loud voice...”We are taking back Texas, one child at a time!”

28
posted on 11/30/2012 2:24:35 PM PST
by Ruy Dias de Bivar
(The parasites now outnumber the producers.)

. . . good news for conservatives who have babies. Conservatives become a bigger proportion of the population, the more liberals have face-lifts instead of kids. You could call it the Darwinian revenge of God-fearing people. Liberalism leads to demographic extinction for liberals.

We can't take legal Mexican immigrants, most of whom are poor, uneducated, and unskilled. 25% of the adult legal immigrants who enter this country each year lack even a high school degree. And 57% of immigrant headed households with children are on at least one major welfare program.

“Without a continued influx of such immigrants, America will become poorer, not richer.”
Most of us are willing to take that chance, Linda, but the hits just keep on coming.
She’s a Mexican Bund mouthpiece.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but have heart, my friend. If we can shut down illegal immigration, send many of them home (with whatever deal we get from the Congress) and finally assimilate those that are already here, you will find that Hispanics make fine Americans. They start businesses, are socially conservative (meaning they will one day be Republicans), they are loyal to the country, and the men make d-mn tough Marines.

LEGAL IMMIGRATION is the real problem. The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 46 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest level in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.

We bring in 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS EVERY YEAR--87% of whom are minorities as defined by the USG. 25% of the adults lack even a high school degree and three quarters have a high school degree or less.

Hispanics have an out of wedlock birthrate of 50% and the highest school dropout rate of any group. They are natural Dem constituents. They use welfare to a much higher degree than natives.

Why do you think Texas is so strongly GOP, when it's demographics are similar to California? Because the Hispanics that made it are voting Republican. The CULTURE of Texas makes them that way.

Texas is changing. It will follow CA demographically and then electorally. It is just a matter of time.

There were five majority-minority states or equivalents in 2011: Hawaii (77.1 percent minority), the District of Columbia (64.7 percent), California (60.3 percent), New Mexico (59.8 percent) and Texas (55.2 percent). No other state had a minority population greater than 46.4 percent of the total.

Intermarriage will also eliminate the predisposition of Hispanics to be takers. Example: my daughter is in college and in her freshman dorm there were a number of other kids with Hispanic names like Gonzalez, Rodriguez, Martinez, etc. In spite of their names, these kids were all Caucasian and 100% all-American, meaning a Hispanic father and a white mother, producing white offspring. I think the intermarriage rate of assimilated Hispanics is over 50%.

Hispanics can be of any race. 53% self-identify as white. But our laws incentivize Hispanics to identify as a minority. Affirmative action and minority business set asides encourage group indentity, no matter how slight.

Minorities and immigrants vote Democrat two to one. The Reps are delusional if they think they will get the majority of their vote. By 2042 half of the country will be minorities.

Putting aside the immigration issue for the moment, fewer people means unless there is a corresponding increase in productivity, declining GDP something that no policy maker can truly fix. With that means debt default is more or less inevitable.

38
posted on 11/30/2012 4:24:24 PM PST
by garbanzo
(It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine)

The only part of your post I agree with is `we must stop the influx first’.
Chavez’s and your `It’s A Wonderful Life’ anecdotes are all very heartwarming, especially this time of the year, but those damned facts are stubborn things, hmmm?

Since the author is pounding on demography, I believe it worth pointing out that Mark Steyn mentions Europe’s experience with importing immigrants to do the work that the children the French, Dutch and English failed to have are (of course) not doing.
They found themselves with substantial, discrete sub-cultures living among them that had figured out the wonders of the welfare state. And they become surly, demanding and militant. By those things I mean: running riot/burning cars, assaulting, intimidating older citizens/women, and actually setting aside portions of the cities as Sharia governed and not subject to the laws of their host countries.
So Ms. Chavez is confusing immigration with human host-parasitism when she mentions legal immigrants and illegals in the same sentence, as she does above.

The remainder of your rose-colored view of the ongoing invasion isn’t at all helpful in addressing the overriding problem that you recognize and that Obama seems determined to solve with a blanket amnesty, if he could to it with a stroke of the pen.
I will say this for the GOP: They held firm in refusing to participate in “comprehensive immigration reform” (SEE: “amnesty”) albeit, as we held their feet to the fire.

Putting aside the immigration issue for the moment, fewer people means unless there is a corresponding increase in productivity, declining GDP something that no policy maker can truly fix. With that means debt default is more or less inevitable.

This assumes that all working age people are more or less productive. But we know many millions in this country are a net drag.

Linda Chavez is such a disappointment. Like Colin Powell, she was promoted during Reagan in the belief she was a race-blind true conservative. And like Powell, she turned out to be a race-obsessed RINO.

That is not the way it is in good marriages. I know that these injustices are widespread (from what I read), but I tell you truly that in my circle of family and friends, this divorce/exploit-the-men thing is literally unthinkable.

I know it's not much consolation to people who have been in bad marriages to say this, but bruising, life-wrecking divorces are not the norm even now. From where I stand --- from what I can see (maybe this is a "subculture," but it's a major subculture) ---I see faithful husbands and wives, faithful to each other and to our children, and to God to Whom our vows are paid.

I have never known Linda Chavez to be a racial activist. Her last contact with the AFT (Teachers' Union) was almost 30 years ago ---- and she left them for reasons of political/moral divergence: even 30 years ago she couldn't stomach the radical Left direction they were going in.

And she's not hysterical.

You can certainly criticize Linda Chavez on policies, and do so with facts; but the attempt to encapsulate her character with a few broadly insulting phrases is, I think, poorly directed.

Chavez plays the race card, calling all those who wish to reduce illegal immigration racist. She calls those of us who want to reduce absolute immigration Malthusiasts, racist and nativist. She is a liberal and race baiter. She’s no conservative. She falls between neoconservatives like Irving Kristol and neoliberals like Dan Patrik Moynihan.

I’m talking specifically about the situation facing young males today - in the age bracket (say, 18 to 30) where they’d want to marry and start a family.

Women in that age bracket are, in the majority, some of the most self-entitled brats and solipsists I’ve ever met. About one third of them are overweight, about one eighth of them border on morbid obesity. They’re loud, obnoxious, ready to complain and fight at the drop of a hat, and many of them think that men are little more than a wallet on legs.

My advice to young men today is to not get married, period, full stop. If they find the girl of their dreams who they can get to know very well and discover everything about her attitudes towards money, work, parenting, etc - and they think she’s not a loon, well then perhaps make an exception to the rule.

But the consequences of choosing poorly are now so high for men that failure to choose correctly is no longer an option. Wages for young men have stagnated, and with the costs of tuition, housing, cars, etc - a young man simply cannot afford to go through even a relatively civil divorce. I’m not talking the crazy-woman divorces here, I’m talking of a normal divorce with normal outcomes. They’re financially crushing for most men.

Older people here on FR who associate only with conservative Christians need to get out more. They’re living in a small and shrinking community in the US. Go take a walkabout on either coast of the US, where the majority of the population lives, and you’ll see that I’m not offering bad advice to young men.

I should add that I’m happily married for a long time to only one girl. And she largely agrees with me and is flabbergasted at some of the venal, abusive and irrational behavior by young women. She would like it if I were not offering the advice I am to young men, but she understands why I am offering said advice to young men. She sees the same situation I do.

Kabar, You must learn the art of doublethink and correct thoughts. Posting these hate facts will only cause the honorable commissar Chavez denounce you as a nativist or racist. Surely you know that there is no historical America, only some ill defined and ever changing principles, that our Founders thought whatever approved historians say they thought, that humans are completely flexible and replaceable. Any deviation is heresy.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.